Resolution
Statement – 07814-20 Hammans v Telegraph.co.uk
Summary
of Complaint
1. Mark
Hammans complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the
Telegraph.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice
in an article headlined “Dominic Cummings did breach Coronavirus guidelines,
Durham Police say”, published by Telegraph.co.uk on 28 May 2020.
2. The
article’s headline reported that the Prime Minister’s Senior Adviser, Mr
Cummings, “did breach Coronavirus guidelines” according to “Durham Police”. The
article then went on to report that an investigation by Durham Constabulary
concluded Mr Cummings “did commit a ‘minor breach’ of the guidelines” when he
drove to Barnard Castle on 12 April. The article reported that ““[h]ad a…police
officer stopped Mr Cummings…the officer would have spoken to him, and…likely
advised Mr Cummings to return to the address…Had this advice been accepted by Mr
Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken””. This was based upon a
press statement made by Durham Constabulary on 28 May.
3. The
complainant said the article was misleading as it did not provide an accurate
summary of the statement made by Durham Constabulary. He said that Durham Constabulary did not
conclusively find that Mr Cummings had committed an offence under the
Coronavirus restrictions and, furthermore,
it was not the role of the police to determine objectively whether an
individual was guilty of breaking the law but, rather, a matter for the courts.
4. The
publication accepted that the investigation by Durham Constabulary did not
conclusively find that Dominic Cummings had breached Covid-19 guidelines but
said that readers would be aware that a finding of guilt is for the courts.
Additionally, it stated that part of the police statement indicated the police
had come as close as it could to indicating that, in its view, Mr Cummings had
breached the restrictions.
Relevant
Code Provisions
5. Clause
1 (Accuracy)
i) The
Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted
information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A
significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected,
promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology
published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the
regulator.
iv) The
Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between
comment, conjecture and fact.
Mediated
Outcome
6. The
complaint was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties.
IPSO therefore began an investigation into the matter.
7. During
IPSO’s investigation, the publication offered to publish a standalone
correction. It also offered to share a link to this on Twitter as well as to
include the correction as a footnote in the original online article.
CORRECTION:
“Contrary to the wording of the original headline and first paragraph of this
article, now amended, Durham Police did not conclusively find that Dominic
Cummings had breached Covid-19 guidelines; any finding of guilt would be for a
court to decide. Durham Police did however state that had an officer stopped Mr
Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have likely
advised him to return to Durham, and no enforcement action would have been
taken had Mr Cummings followed this advice. However, this statement again does
not conclude any guilt on Mr Cummings part.”
8. The
complainant said that this would resolve the matter to his satisfaction.
9. As
the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make
a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date
complaint received: 28/05/2020
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 24/07/2020
Back to ruling listing